From: Robin Vickery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:31 AM
To: php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: Email Validation built-in? RFC
On 10/25/05, Mark Charette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben Litton wrote:
>
> > You could certainly write an ext
On 10/25/05, Mark Charette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben Litton wrote:
>
> > You could certainly write an extension to do so. That's what I did
> > (mostly I was writing one for another purpose and added a function I
> > stole from O'Reilly.
>
> As you stated in your article, it isn't rfc822 c
On 10/24/05, Manuel Lemos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 10/23/2005 07:21 PM Robin Vickery said the following:
> >>
> >>> ... would it not make sense for there to be a BUILT-IN PHP function of
> >>> a TRUE email syntactic validation?
> >> I don't see that being much better than passing a good regu
Ben Litton wrote:
You could certainly write an extension to do so. That's what I did
(mostly I was writing one for another purpose and added a function I
stole from O'Reilly.
As you stated in your article, it isn't rfc822 compliant (it isn't even
close). Richard was pretty specific in his
Hello,
on 10/23/2005 07:21 PM Robin Vickery said the following:
Checking MX records is not reliable at all.
I agree that it is less useful today, but it still help catches many
domain name typos.
... would it not make sense for there to be a BUILT-IN PHP function of
a TRUE email syntactic val
On 10/23/05, Manuel Lemos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> on 10/22/2005 12:58 AM Richard Lynch said the following:
> > Checking MX records is not reliable at all.
>
> I agree that it is less useful today, but it still help catches many
> domain name typos.
>
>
> > ... would it not make se
On Sat, October 22, 2005 2:32 pm, James Benson wrote:
> It would be nice to have a php function valid_email or something but
> until then i suppose we just make do with what is available, for what
> I
> need I use the following:-
>
> eregi("^[a-z0-9]+([_\\.-][a-z0-9]+)*"
> ."@"."([a-z0-9]+([\.-][a-
J B wrote:
> On 9/21/05, Michael Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Additionally, some mail servers unconditionally accept mail
>> addressed to ANY username at their domain, whether that user
>> actually exists or not. This is very bad practice, because it
>> usually means the accepting MTA is a "
J B wrote:
On 9/21/05, Michael Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Additionally, some mail servers unconditionally accept mail addressed to ANY
username at their domain, whether that user actually exists or not. This is
very
bad practice, because it usually means the accepting MTA is a "dumb" hos
On 9/21/05, Michael Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Additionally, some mail servers unconditionally accept mail addressed to ANY
> username at their domain, whether that user actually exists or not. This is
> very
> bad practice, because it usually means the accepting MTA is a "dumb" host
> th
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Moseby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:21 PM
> To: php-general@lists.php.net
> Subject: RE: [PHP] Re: email validation (no regex)
>
>
> >
> > btw simply checking for a single '@&#x
Philip Hallstrom wrote:
>>> but you could do what you want to do. however, it's going to be
>>> painful if you want it to match the rfc spec...
>>
>> Really? Why does it need to be painful? I just need to do a
>> 'EHLO', 'Mail From:' and 'RCPT to:' and 'QUIT'. It's not going to
>> actually send a
but you could do what you want to do. however, it's going to
be painful if
you want it to match the rfc spec...
Really? Why does it need to be painful? I just need to do a 'EHLO', 'Mail
From:' and 'RCPT to:' and 'QUIT'. It's not going to actually send an email.
Seems simple to me. Maybe there
> > because you should want/need to validate that the address is correct
> prior
> > to determining if the email server is up running...
> >
> > the regex function simply allows you to quickly determine if the address
> > is
> > valid... doens't mean that it's going to go to an actual live user...!
>
> btw simply checking for a single '@' with a domain doesn't do
> it... what if
> the user has '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' or '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. will your
> regex accept/deny
> this???
My function will quickly deny those because the DNS lookup for them will
immediately fail. Will your regex deny '[
> because you should want/need to validate that the address is correct prior
> to determining if the email server is up running...
>
> the regex function simply allows you to quickly determine if the address
> is
> valid... doens't mean that it's going to go to an actual live user...!!
>
> btw si
anetThoughtful [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:01 PM
To: 'Jim Moseby'; php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: RE: [PHP] Re: email validation (no regex)
> > What you have is virtually impossible to determine if all legitimate
> possibilities are covere
> > What you have is virtually impossible to determine if all legitimate
> possibilities are covered.
> > email validation using regex is a very heavily analyzed subject
> > Google "regex email validate" and you'll find loads of expressions.
> Look at the Zend article, it provides some insigh
> jim...
>
> validating email means different things to different people...
True, but for the most part people just want to know whether a user has
entered a real working email address into their forms. What better test
than to try to send an email to it?
>
> but there's no way you're going
Jim Moseby said the following on 09/21/05 11:00:
>>>So, what is the general thought about validating email
>>
>>addresses in this
>>
>>>manner?
>>>
>>>JM
>>
>>Thre is a good reason why virtually everyone uses regex
>>patterns for email validating.
>
>
> Excellent start! And that good reason is
a feel
for how extensive this task can get...
-Original Message-
From: Jim Moseby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:01 AM
To: 'Al'; php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: RE: [PHP] Re: email validation (no regex)
> > So, what is the general
> > So, what is the general thought about validating email
> addresses in this
> > manner?
> >
> > JM
> Thre is a good reason why virtually everyone uses regex
> patterns for email validating.
Excellent start! And that good reason is...?
How can regex ensure that the email address that is su
..
-bruce
-Original Message-
From: Robert Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 8:06 PM
To: php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] Re: email validation regex
Well what does the aforementioned regex seem to miss that Email::Valid
catches?
--Rob
bruce wrote
Well what does the aforementioned regex seem to miss that Email::Valid
catches?
--Rob
bruce wrote:
i tried that one...
it doesn't do as well as the perl... "Email::Valid" mod...
i decided to write a quick perl script, and call it from the php app...
seems to satisfy my needs for now... i hav
i tried that one...
it doesn't do as well as the perl... "Email::Valid" mod...
i decided to write a quick perl script, and call it from the php app...
seems to satisfy my needs for now... i haven't run across any php
script/regex that's as comprehensive as the perl "Email::Valid"
-bruce
-O
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Manuel Lemos wrote:
> On 06/14/2002 03:06 AM, Miguel Cruz wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Manuel Lemos wrote:
>>> The following classes use this validation regular expression string.
>>> It does not exclude some invalid addresses but includes all valid
>>> addresses.
>>>
>>>
Hello,
On 06/14/2002 03:06 AM, Miguel Cruz wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Manuel Lemos wrote:
>
>>The following classes use this validation regular expression string. It
>>does not exclude some invalid addresses but includes all valid addresses.
>>
>>"^([-!#\$%&'*+./0-9=?A-Z^_`a-z{|}~?])+@([-!#\
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Manuel Lemos wrote:
> The following classes use this validation regular expression string. It
> does not exclude some invalid addresses but includes all valid addresses.
>
>
>"^([-!#\$%&'*+./0-9=?A-Z^_`a-z{|}~?])+@([-!#\$%&'*+/0-9=?A-Z^_`a-z{|}~?]+\\.)+[a-zA-Z]{2,4}\$"
It
28 matches
Mail list logo
